i'm chris wallace. we'll get the latest on the terror attack in boston when we talk live in police commissioner ed davis next. >> we are eternally grateful for the outcome here tonight. we have a suspect in custody. >> massachusetts and the nation celebrate the takedown of the two brothers believed responsible for the marathon bombings. but what does the terror attack tell us about cracks in our national security? we'll ask two congressional leaders on intelligence issues, senator dianne feinstein and congressman pete king. then trade craft.

how do we find terrorists without giving up our freedom? with cameras and images everywhere, is more big brother the answer? we'll set down with philadelphia police commissioner charles ramsey and terrorism expert philip mudd. plus the bombings raise new questions about the drive for immigration reform and gun control. we'll ask our sunday panel how the attack will influence those debates. and our power player of the week. the man who followed president bush every step of the way. all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. at the end of the week that saw the first mass bombing in the u.s. since 9/11, we're going to focus today on one central question -- where do we stand now in the war on terror? first, let's get the latest on the investigation from boston police commissioner ed davis.

as we welcome you, commissioner, i know i speak for people across the country when i say, congratulations, sir. job well done. >> good morning, chris. thank you very much. >> let's start with the suspect, dzhokhar sar nevatsarnaer. what's his condition? have police spoken to him yet? >> the questioning is going to be done by a special team brought in by the fbi. as far as i know, that has not been done yet. >> is he able to speak? is he in condition to speak? are they waiting for that? >> he's in no condition to be interrogated at this point in time. he's progressing, though, and we're monitoring the situation carefully. >> is there any evidence at this point that there were other people involved in this plot, either foreign or domestic, and that they may be planning more attacks? >> chris, i can't get into too much of the investigation, but i can tell you that we're

examining every possibility here. we've told the people of boston we feel that they're safe at this point in time, and we continue to say that. there may be other components to this investigation that will lead to charges down the road. this is a very intensive and wide ranging inquiry. >> did the two brothers, from any indication you have, plan more attacks? again, i get to the public safety aspect of this. is this a possibility that there are more explosives out there that are unaccounted for? >> it's possible, but we have already searched any of the locations that we know are directly connected with the two brothers. they clearly had other explosives. they detonated those explosives at the scene of the arrest and shootout in watertown. we feel that they had plans to use those explosives, possibly on soft targets. >> so you think there were plans for more attacks on the

homeland? >> that's my assessment baseded upon the fact there are a significant number of explosives found at the scene of the arrest. >> so how confident can you be that they don't have more explosives still out there, sir? >> we cannot be positive, but we're confident that these were the two actors, these were the two individuals that were carrying out this mission, and they are either dead or arrested at this point in time. >> i understand that you're limited in what you can say, but i have to ask you, what was the motive? do you have any sense of why these two young men who had lived for years in this country suddenly turned into terrorists? >> i think that question will be answered over the course of the investigation. we have great investigators from the boston police, fbi, and state police working on this. but for now i can't say precisely what the motive was. >> you can't say because you don't know, or you can't say because you can't say? >> i can't say because i can't say. >> understood. do you have reason to believe

the older brother, tamerlan, was the leader in this and that dzhokhar may have been the follower? can you hear me, commissioner? we have lost the commissioner temporarily. while we try to re-establish that connection, we're going to continue our conversation, and with so many questions still unanswered, we'll come back to the commissioner when we can. so many questions still unanswered about the terror plot and how to protect our homeland, we've invited two congressional leaders on national security to discuss what happens now. dianne feinstein is chair of the senate intelligence committee, congressman pete king is chair of the house committee on counterterrorism, and he joins us live from new york. i'm sorry. i've got him in my ear. senator, congressman, hold on. we're going to go back to the police commissioner. do you have a sense whether the older brother tamerlan was the

leader in this, and dzhokhar somehow followed him into the conspiracy? >> any information along those lines is based upon conjecture at this point in time. i don't know definitively who was the motivator here. there's clearly evidence that's been published publicly that would indicate the older brother traveled overseas and may have been involved in extremist views, but, again, that's not part of the investigation at this point in time. >> let me just ask you one other question in that respect. do you know anything about who tamerlan met with, his involvement with extremists when he was in russia for those six months last year? >> i do not. >> what set the brothers off on their final rampage on thursday night? had you identified them 10:00 thursday night, were you closing in on them, or were they just trying to go out in a final

burst of violence? >> we were not closing in on them at that particular time. i think that they decided to go active after their pictures were disclosed publicly. tragically, officer collier from the m.i.t. police was murdered by these individuals as they started their rampage. >> but that's where i'm -- i guess i'm getting at -- >> i just want to say -- >> go ahead, sir. >> i just want to say, on officer collier, i believe that he was attacked, and his murder led to our apprehension of these individuals. tragically, he paid with his life, but these individuals were out to kill other people, and i think that we forced their hand by putting the pictures out there. i think that's what started the rampage. but officer collier is a hero. >> well, absolutely. and in that sense, were they planning or trying to escape, or were they trying to kill as many

people as they could and they figured this was going to end with their death? >> i only know what transpired in the hours after the release of the photos, and i think everybody can draw their own conclusions as to what their motivation was. i can't say from the investigative process exactly what we've determined at this point in time because of the federal investigation. >> commissioner davis, we want to thank you. thanks for talking -- taking the time to talk with us today, and again we congratulate you on all the first responders. best of luck this week. >> thank you, chris. i appreciate that. >> well, we've already introduced senator feinstein and congressman king. let's talk to them about some of the policies. senator feinstein, one of the big issues that's come up now, should tsarnaev be treated as a criminal, read his miranda rights and have his right to a lawyer, or should he be treated as an enemy combatant with no

such protections? >> i believe very strongly the former. i believe that's the only legal way to proceed. i do not believe, under the military commission law, that he is eligible for that. it would be unconstitutional to do that. let me say this, chris. one of the great things about america is that we come together at times of trial. i very much regret the fact that there are those that want to precipitate a debate over whether he's an enemy combatant or whether he is a terrorist, a murderer, et cetera. federal law, we've had 435 terrorist convictions under federal law. we've had 100-plus arrests. there have been maybe half a dozen under the military commission. it is really very clear to me that the course that can be taken -- you've got the high value interrogation group. they're skilled. they know how to do this.

the miranda right can be read at a later time. he has reportedly been shot through the throat. he's intubated. he can't talk now. so there is time to do the investigation, to make a clear assessment, and to move from there. so i really regret all of this discussion, which is creating a conflict that need not be there. the administration is ready for this. >> let me bring in congressman king. despite the comments of senator feinstein, do you think tsarnaev should be treated as a criminal or an enemy combatant? >> i believe he should be treated as an enemy combatant for the purpose of interrogation. i put out a statement with senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte. the reason is there's so many questions unanswered. he is an enemy combatant as this took place on u.s. soil.

ultimately, he will be tried in state court, and those statements cannot be used in trial. but right now the only information we have as far as chechen involvement in al qaeda and the overall islamist movement, and we don't know are there other explosives out there? where do they get the radicalism? are there mosques, imams he's meeting with? who did his brother meet be when he was in chechnya? these are only questions that can be obtained if he does not get his miranda rights. even though, there's the public safety exception. that's going to expire in 48 hours, and after that, he can lawyer up and refuse to speak. right now is the only opportunity to go into the treasure trove of information that only he has. >> excuse me, congressman. i do want to get to the intelligence because i know you both have been briefed by the administration this week. senator feinstein, what can you tell us about the plot at this point? was there any foreign involvement, and especially, what do you know, if anything, about the older brother,

tamerlan's trip to russia last year? >> we do not know specifics. however, we do know there was very likely a call from russia before he went back to dagistan and chechnya asking about it. i think just conjecture would lead one to believe this may have come from running jihadist sites on his website. anyway, he went home for six months. that's a lapse. we will find out what happened during those six months. i think there is likely going to be an assessment that this was somebody who did want to participate in a jihadist event. there is ample evidence, fingerprinted, i understand, direct testimony from one of the people that had his legs blown off that he recognized him. they admitted to the driver of the car that they hijacked that they were the bombers. so i think there's going to be a

great deal of evidence put together to be able to convict him, and it should likely be a death penalty case under federal law. i believe the federal competence in doing this at this time is extraordinary. i believe that -- let me just finish. the hig can interrogate him with abdul mutalav and many, many others. they've gotten many convictions. >> i don't worry about the conviction. i want intelligence that could save american lives. i believe that can only happen if he's treated as an enemy combatant and has no access to a lawyer. >> you've both made your point very ably. let me ask you this, congressman. what do you make of the fact, because of russian request, the fbi interrogated the older brother tamerlan back in 2007 about his ties to islamist radicalism and found out he's not a threat. two questions. first of all, what do you make

of the interrogation? and the fact after he returned after six months in russia, he apparently was not on an fbi watch list? >> i regret for the fbi and for the director, but this is the latest in a series of cases like this -- anwar alackey, nidal hasan, and now this case of the older brother where the fbi is given information about someone as being potential terrorists, they look at them, and then they don't take action. they go out and carry out murders after this. again, i'm wondering, again, is there something deficient here? what was wrong? again, there was nothing they could find in 2011. he goes to chechnya in 2012. he has statements up on his website. he's talking about radical imams. why didn't the fbi go back and look at this? i don't want to run monday morning quarterback. they did a great job of resolving the case, but as far as getting information in advance and not seeming to take proper action, this is the fifth case i'm aware of where the fbi has failed to stop someone who ultimately became a terrorist murderer. >> congressman king, you said

after the bombings -- and this is your quote -- we are letting our guard down. do you believe this attack should have been prevented? you have also said, i gather, that political correctness be damned, we have to do more effective surveillance inside the muslim community. >> actually, as far as letting our guard down, i was being critical of those in congress. some of my own party want to start cutting funding for homeland security because they think this war is over. it's not. as far as the other question, chris? >> surveillance inside the muslim community. >> listen, the threat is coming from within the muslim community in these cases. in new york. that's why commissioner kelly has 1,000 police officers out in the community. unfortunately, he gets smeared by "the new york times" and the associated press, but the fact is we've stopped 16 plots in new york because we know that al qaeda is shifting its tactics. it's not going to be attackers from overseas. we've been able to prevent that. they are getting people in our country who are under the radar screen, who have clean records. the times square bomber, the

subway bomber in new york, and now we've seen it, it appears, in massachusetts. 99% of the mud limslims are outstanding americans, but the fact is that's where the threat is coming from. when the fbi was after the westies, they went to the irish community. when they were after the mafia, they went to the italian community. if you know a certain threat is coming from a certain community, that's where you have to look. >> senator feinstein, your reaction to this? >> that's exactly where they will look. i don't think all of this is very helpful. i think the important thing is to get the facts. let the investigation proceed. the fbi has very good interrogators. they know what they are doing. i believe that they will put a case together that will be very strong. with respect to whether we are doing enough in the muslim community, i think we should take a look at that. i don't think we need to go and develop some real disdain and hatred on television about it. >> i must say, i don't think that's what congressman king was

saying. he was saying, that's where the threat was coming from. we have to address that threat. >> this came at this point from two individuals. that's what we really do know. we do not know what their connections are. so i think we ought to find out before we begin to charge them with all kinds of associations. >> we have a couple of minutes left, and i want to ask you a question and congressman king a question. senator, reaction to the boston bombings has spilled into other issues, including gun control. there's some conservatives who say that, when 1 million people in boston were forced to stay in their homes, that a lot of those people, particularly in watertown where they were going door to door and there was a real concern that this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages, would people like to have guns? >> oh, some may have, yes. but if where you're going is do they need an assault weapon? i don't think so. as the vice president said -- >> shouldn't they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves? >> well, how about a machine gun

then? we did away with machine guns because of how they're used. i think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they're used. >> semiautomatics, it's the most popular rifle in america. >> and y could use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect. and there's the element of surprise. you've got police all over the place in watertown, so i don't really think that this is applicable. i think there are people that want to make this argument, but 12-gauge shotgun, there are many weapons, 2,000-plus weapons that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon. >> we're running out of time. so i'm not going to give you a chance to answer that question, congressman king. i'll give you a chance to answer the other question. this has also spilled into the debate over immigration reform. some conservatives like charles grassley, senator from iowa, are saying, before we reform the system, we ought to focus more on who we let into this country. your response? >> first of all, i don't think

it should have a severe impact on the immigration debate. i do think it should focus on whether or not it should be refined, and if people are coming from a country which has terrorist background, if there's a strong terrorist element in that country, there should be extra vetting for people from that country. i'm the grandson of immigrants. while i have some concerns with the security aspects of immigration reform, i don't think we should use that as an excuse to stop the debate. i do believe, if someone's coming from a country which has strong al qaeda or any other type of terrorist element in it, we should not be afraid to ask the extra questions or the extra research, do the extra vetting to make sure that people coming in here have no affiliation at all to those terrorist groups. >> senator feinstein, congressman king, we want to thank you both for a spirited discussion. thank you for coming in today. we want to stay on top of all of these developments. >> thank you, sir. >> up next, we'll get another perspective from the terror threat from two men who have been on the front line. how vulnerable is the country to another attack? we went out and asked people a simple question:

how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪ was a record collection. no. there was that fuzzy stuff on the gouda. [ both ] ugh!

when it came to our plants... we were so confused. how much is too much water? too little? until we got miracle-gro moisture control. it does what basic soils don't by absorbing more water, so it's there when plants need it. yeah, they're bigger and more beautiful. guaranteed. in pots. in the ground. in a ukulele. are you kidding me? that was my idea. with the right soil... everyone grows with miracle-gro. well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work.

usa! usa! >> the man hunt in boston is over, but what did we learn about the terror threat and how best to protect the homeland? we're joined by two men who have been on the front lines here in washington. philip mudd, who spent more than a quarter century at the cia, the national security council, and the fbi. and commissioner charles ramsey, head of the philadelphia police department, joins us from there. gentlemen, welcome to both of you.

commissioner ramsey, as head of the nation's fourth largest police department, what have you learned from boston? is there any way to stop what appears to have been a small domestic terror cell? >> well, certainly, it's a challenge, and i don't think anyone can say that we can totally stop these kinds of attacks from occurring, but we do learn, as these incidents take place, and we take steps that we can to protect our public. >> mr. mudd, we interviewed you seven years ago, it turns out, as a power play when you were the number two men in the fbi's national security branch. was there -- and i'm not just talking about the fbi. was there any kind of a pra breakdown here in our national security operation, specifically with regard to the fbi. are you troubled by the fact they were alerted by the russians to the older brother. they interviewed him, decided he was not a threat. he goes to russia, comes back, and they don't seem to have him on a watch list? >> no, i'm not troubled by this for several reasons. first, people fail to consider

the implications of false positives. you look at one guy we could have gotten, but you forget the other 10,000 that would have come into the net if we look at a person like this every day. these kinds of things happen, but i suspect it wasn't a dropped ball here. >> overall, do you see any way you could have prevented these two guys? >> well, we're going to have to see what kind of foreign connections they have, whether the travel to russia last year actually meant something. what i see so far we've got two kids in a closed radical circle. breaking a circle in a state like ours that is an open society is virtually impossible. >> what is your sense -- i understand this is speculation, but informed speculation -- were they acting alone, part of a group, and do you see any al qaeda fingerprints on this? >> the only fingerprint i've seen might possibly have been ideology, not operations. every step of the way was pretty rudimentary. for example, if you look at some of those initial photos, you've got a kid with a hoodie and a cap. if he wants to obscure himself, the hoodie goes on, and the cap goes forward. if he had operational training, i want to know who did it

because they were amateurs. >> commissioner -- unfortunately, they were amateurs who hurt a lot of people. >> that's correct. >> commissioner, some law enforcement officials are criticizing authorities in boston for locking down the entire metropolitan community, 1 million people, for about 12 hours. they say we don't do that when there is a serial killer on the loose. they did do that for tsarnaev, and they're saying it's an overreaction. question, would you have done that? was that a reasonable response? >> i don't know if we would have done it because i don't know if we would have thought of doing it, but i think it was genius. i think it was absolutely the right thing to do. you have to remember the one brother, when he was killed, had some kind of device on his body. you don't know if the second person had a device on their body as well. he could easily get on a subway car, for example, suicide bomber, very, very dangerous to the public at large. i think they did absolutely the right thing. i don't know where the criticism is coming from.

>> well, i guess -- and it's not really criticism. it's a question. how long do you hold a city hostage in a situation like that? >> it depends on the situation. again, it was a bold step, and i'm not suggesting that you take it in every situation, but i'm not privy to all the information that they had at the time when they had to make that decision. so you have to assume that they knew a little bit more than the public at large. the first priority is to maintain the safety of the public and not allow any more people to be seriously killed or injured. >> mr. mudd, one thing a lot of us learned this week is how wired a big city is with all the surveillance cameras, all the electronic intercepts, all the weapons detectors. give us a sense, if you will, of trade craft. how do you identify within a couple of days two individuals who apparently turned out to be the right people, two individuals out of thousands and thousands of spectators along the marathon route. >> i think you're looking at the sort of explosion of video,

smartphones, the video you get from places like atms, and how incredible that's turned out to be as an investigative tool. even ten years ago, i'm not certain we would have had those videos, those photos rapidly enough to identify those guys. you can put together whatever kind of intelligence picture you want, but that video was incredible. >> when you have the video, give us a sense, take us inside that special operations center, how do you identify these two guys? >> what we did in this case is say, we're going to release it to the public because we don't have time to conduct a month long investigation. if these guys do something tomorrow and we didn't release the video to identify them, that's a potential mistake. >> how do you identify the guys so you can release the video? >> one of the things you're going to do is say, hey, we have a tip line. if this guy's your neighbor. if he lives in your apartment, you've got to take the risk of taking 10,000 phone calls for the one that works. >> commissioner ramsey, new york has something called the ring of steel. 3,000 cameras just in lower manhattan.

do you come away from this experience thinking that you need even more cameras, even more electronic surveillance in downtown philadelphia? >> yeah, i wish we had 3,000 cameras, to be honest with you. listen, it's an invaluable investigative tool. it gives you a historical record, both before, during, and after an event takes place. if you look at the london bombings in 2005 or the boston bombings in 2013, had it not been for cameras, these cases would be a lot more difficult to solve in a timely fashion. add social media onto that now, with people just taking photographs, videos, unrelated to the incident, but being able to have that footage to be able to go through and identify who might have done what in a given situation, it's just invaluable. >> and how do you identify them? is it as simple as looking to see when -- locate where the bomb site was and look to see when the bag was placed there and then go backwards? >> yeah, if they can determine

where the explosion may have originated from, then certainly you can go back and check footage. who was in that area? how long had that package been there? who may have dropped that package? can you identify other people in the crowd that could be witnesses to this? it gives you a record that you would not normally have, and people across the street just taking photographs -- there were thousands, had to be thousands of photographs and video, footage they had to go through. >> finally, mr. mudd, what do you see as the aftermath of boston? do you think we have to fear copy cats? more of these small, domestic terror cells, and how does law enforcement need to respond more effectively? not necessarily to capture, they did that pretty well, but to prevent it in the first place? >> i think you'll see lots of copycat threats. i was looking on the event matrix. after every event, someone would call in and say, i want to do something like that. what i fear, though, is that people too quickly are going to categorize this as terrorism.

this looks more to me like columbine than it does like al qaeda. two kids who radicalized between themselves in a closed circle and go out and commit murder. i would charge these guys as murderers, not terrorists. >> just real quickly, you have the report from russia. they said they worried that he was involved with radical islam. he goes and spends six months in russia, in chechnya, in that area where a lot of radicals, whether it's chechen separatists or radical islamists. how can you write off the idea there was islamist influence there? >> i'm not writing it off. but i want to use a simple term. in looking at the psychology of clusters like this, that i did for 20 years, the psychology of the cluster is not that clear. it's two kids for whatever reason decided they want to commit murder. and the murder piece is as significant as the terror piece. >> thank you, gentlemen. we all hope some lessons have been learned and will be put into action. up next, our sunday panel,

including two experts on national security on the state of the war on terror in the wake of the boston bombings. ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

we didn't have u-verse back in my day. you couldn't just... guys... there you are. you know you couldn't just pause a show in one room, then... where was i... you couldn't pause a show in one room then start playing it in another. and...i'm talking to myself... [ male announcer ] call to get u-verse tv for just $19 a month for 2 years with qualifying bundles. rethink possible.

♪ i've been inclined

to believe they never would ♪ ♪ oh no no fans at boston's fenway park and neil diamond himself making a surprise appearance, continued the tradition of singing "sweet caroline" at the first red sox home game since the bombings, and the sox won 4-3. time now for our sunday group. bill christo of the "weekly standard," former congresswoman jane harman, global security consultant michael hayden, and fox news analyst juan williams. congresswoman harman is a top former democrat on the house intelligence committee, what is your takeaway on the boston bombings? why did these guys succeed where so many have failed over the last decade? how do we respond better to protect the homeland? >> i think we responded very well here, but we have to be right 100% of the time. they only have to be right once. they exploited, obviously successfully, a weakness in how

the bomb sniffing dogs and others were working at this marathon, which had a high police presence. obviously, next time, we will have more bomb sniffing dogs or whatever it takes, but i think, given our track record since 9/11 of preventing most of these things that have been tried by amateurs -- and i agree with phil mudd that these guys were amateurs -- i give us high marks, and the response of boston and the country has been absolutely magnificent. my final comment is this has been a national civics lesson for the country, and i think this guy will be interrogated effectively, tried effectively, and incarcerated or given the death penalty, and that will be another lesson that we can capture people and the rule of law prevails. >> general hayden, what do you make -- and this is sort of one of the mysterious parts of this -- of the trip to russia by the older brother, the possibility of a chechen connection? does this open a new front in the war on terror?

>> it might, chris. we just don't know. that's the part of this that deserves the deepest, hardest working investigation that we can muster. that's six months he spent in dagestan right now is a black hole. we need to learn more about it. did he undergo training there? was there any operational direction? i agree with phil mudd, if there were operational direction, it wasn't very good, and the training doesn't seem to have been all that good. was this part of alienation of young immigrants to the united states, or is this part of chechen anger against moscow, or was this part of the global jihad? we're going to have to find out. >> as we discussed earlier, this reopens the debate about how to handle terror suspects, and we already saw a fairly contentious debate between dianne feinstein and pete king. one, tsarnaev is an american citizen, has been here for a decade. should he be treated as a criminal after the public exception questioning, read his

miranda rights, told his right to remain silent, or should he be treated as an enemy combatant so you can get all the intelligence out of him that you can? >> as a matter of the constitution, chris, our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, he's a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil, so he has to be taken into the u.s. justice system. the u.s. supreme court has never said that someone who's an american who's captured here can be treated as an enemy combatant. if you look at the record, as it was pointed out earlier, we have a better record of prosecuting here in the u.s. criminal justice system, than we do with the 166 at guantanamo bay. when you look at all -- if you think to yourselves, these guys are so unsympathetic, everybody on this show already assumes they're guilty. who wants to say anything in support of them? this impacts our rights as americans, every one of us, and you cannot have unchecked powers for prosecutors, cops, fbi,

without saying they're going to be abusive. you can have false confessions, false imprisonment, and that's part of our record as americans, and we have to guard against this. we have to protect our constitution. >> we also have to protect our homeland, and the question becomes is there an intelligence connection? do we have other people involved? do we have other people planning extra plots? how do you balance constitutional rights with the need to get all the intelligence out of this guy as you can? >> are we at war with a global jihadist threat or not? senator feinstein's law enforcement model is working just fine. that was a very good debate between congressman king and senator feinstein. one was the law enforcement model that's doing very well. the fbi captured these people. they killed another policeman, of course, and that's what happens sometimes. everything is fine. we'll see what happens with the foreign connections. let's not obsess about that. the other model is the guy spent six months abroad just a year ago. if you don't use enemy combatant for him, when are we going to use it?

don't we want to know more about what connections he has with very well-respected jihadist groups in dagestan and elsewhere down there. we'll look at his e-mails and phone records, but it would be good inform interrogate him. did he know other people? did he have a support network? >> you're coming out of your chair. >> i am coming out of my chair. that's not how the model works. we have an intelligence interrogation team that will get a lot of information. that 48-hour value is not a fixed time period. in military commissions, which have not secured any convictions really against anyone since 9/11, there is a right to counsel, and there are procedures too, all of which keep getting tested and tested and don't work. >> enemy combatants have nothing to do with military commissions. you treat him as an enemy combatant, which means you cannot use what he says to convict him. do you need a single thing he says to convict him? >> of course not. >> then let's find out. >> the military commissions don't work.

>> i'm not supporting military commissions. i am saying treat him as an enemy combatant, which is a totally different thing. if you think nothing can be learned from interrogating him -- >> i think something can be learned. of course we can. and i think we'll learn it under the federal process, and we also prove to the world that we apply the rule of law to everyone, especially american citizens. >> i want to get into one more issue. general hayden, before you were head of the cia, you were head of the national security administration, or nsa, which was involved in wire taps overseas. in case of the bush wire taps. in this country, do we use it to look at other facilities in this country? >> that's a great question. i've been asking audiences about this the last four years. how much more of your privacy or your convenience or your commerce do you want us to squeeze in order to make you marginally more safe? serious question, not need to

answer. the american public -- >> what would you say? >> as a citizen, we're about at the right place. as bad as this attack was, i think it's very revealing that from the outside looking in, before we know who did it, we cannot distinguish this from high end crime or low end terrorism. that's a remarkable success that i fear this tragedy -- not a catastrophe -- but this tragedy is the new normal. we're going to have to live with this risk. >> we'll come back to the next segment. we have to take a break here. when we come back, the impact of boston bombings are already having on the debate over guns and immigration reform. can be te and man, you know how that feels. copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder

does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? don't wait to ask your doctor about spiriva. ♪ haters best get to bloggin' in it ♪ ♪ so hot right now that our designer ♪ ♪ sunglasses be foggin' ♪ this crowd is classic ♪ so we play 'em like rachmaninoff ♪ ♪ just hooked 'em up with score alerts ♪ ♪now we're about to set it off ♪set it off like a score alert ♪ beep beep what? ♪if you set your phone to vibrate ♪ ♪ then it might alert your button flies all the ♪ ♪ girls and the guys wanna keep that credit score ♪ ♪ high like a private jet free-credit-score-dot-com ♪

♪ don't forget narrator: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com

folks in the streets of watertown cheering the police who protected their community and captured the second suspect in the boston terror bombings. we're back now with the panel. on that point, bill, residents of watertown spent hours friday inside their homes with the doors locked while police searched for the second suspect. gun rights advocates are already asking, how many of those folks

would like to have had guns to protect themselves, to protect their family? >> i don't know. maybe many of them would like to have them. i don't think it affects -- i don't see how it affects the case for or against gun control measures one way or the other. that's the debate that was had. i think that's one honest merit by the pro-gun advocates. >> congressman harman, you supported gun control when you were in congress. you had an f-minus rating from the nra. >> that's my only f-minus ever. >> you earned it. here was president obama's angry reaction wednesday after the bill, the gun bill was voted down in the senate. >> the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. they claimed it would create some sort of big brother gun registry even though the bill did the opposite. so all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for washington. >> after this week and the vote in the senate, gun control

wasn't going anywhere, but does this sense -- this was a big event for america -- the sense of increased anxiety about your personal safety, does that make gun control an even steeper climb? >> i don't know how much steeper it could be. let's understand, this bill was just about background checks, closing the gun show loophole, something the nra used to support. it was really not about reducing the number of guns that people already own or the kinds that they can own or anything like that. so i think what happened was, sadly, this took attention away, diluted the momentum for this bill. attention was paid elsewhere, and then it lost. i hope that rand paul's efforts, for example, to put on negative ads against susan collins, a republican who had the courage to vote to close the gun show loophole, will be decried by the people of maine. it makes absolutely no sense for

the republican party to circle the wagons and fire in, and it makes no sense for our country to make it easier to have weapons in the hands of the wrong people. >> juan, big defeat this week for the president. doesn't this raise questions that have been raised before about this chief executive's ability to work as well, as we've seen other presidents more successfully do, in getting his legislation, his agenda through college. >> i'm not sure i agree with the premise that it's a big defeat for president obama. clearly, it's something he wanted to happen, chris. i think he never had it on his agenda until newtown occurred. once newtown happened, there was a sudden shift in terms of the polls, american public opinion, and people said, we need to do something. we can't have small children slaughtered in an i dyllic community like newtown, connecticut. right now the emphasis is can the senate work with anybody. the silent filibuster -- you had a clear majority of the senators, 55, who supported this

legislation, and as congresswoman harman pointed out, this was a compromise legislation. this was no hard line. the question becomes, should they have not ever focused on assault weapons? should they have never focused on high capacity magazines? did that waste time? should the president have acted more quickly in the wake of newtown to get this done? these are all tactical measures. as harry reid, the majority leader in the senate, said this week, if you have 90% of the american people and 80% of republicans saying, oh, yeah, background checks are a good idea, we like that, and the senate still can't get it done, i think the emphasis should be on the dysfunction in the u.s. senate. look at the congressional ratings right now. 79% of americans say congress just doesn't work. they don't have that feeling about president obama. >> not a big defeat for president obama? >> of course it's a big defeat for president obama. he went all around the country, and on wednesday night he had a meltdown in the rose garden. the senators actually voted with the way they felt was the right

way to vote. he made the argument, is there a serious public policy argument for background checks, affecting what happened in newtown or in tucson or aurora, colorado, or the crime rates? i'm sorry. the parents of newtown -- >> they want something done. >> i have the greatest sympathy for the parents of newtown, but they never made a public policy argument. that's just a fact. >> i think the public policy argument is so clear here, that we should not have such easy access to guns, that people who are mentally incompetent or people with criminal records or people with any kind of records that would indicate they should not be trusted with a weapon are allowed to get it. what we see, not only in newtown, but daily, bill, in the streets of washington, d.c., chicago, new york, is a slaughter -- >> washington, d.c., has the tightest gun control legislation. >> where do the guns come from? they come from places with lax gun control regulation. >> general hayden, i'm going to bring you into another discussion. there was also talk this week we might see fallout from boston in terms of immigration reform.

in fact, some leading conservatives in congress, including charles grassley, the top republican on the senate judiciary committee, said, let's slow down on immigration reform. let's focus more on who we let into this country and possible security threats. do you think that's a legitimate point? >> the british have a phrase they use after a terrorist attack, which is keep calm, carry on. i think that might apply to this legislation as well. we don't want to be stupid. we want to be careful. but i think immigration reform is a necessary thing. let me talk from a security point of view. immigration to this country contributes to national health and contributes to our national security. from a very narrow perspective, as the former director of the central intelligence agency, we're required, not just by law, to look like america. by admission, we're required to look like the world. we welcome these kinds of folks coming to the united states who want to be contributing american citizens. >> and i think we want to know what they look like, who's in the country.

do we have their fingerprints? do we have photos? do we have records? that's how we know who people are. >> let me give a shut out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham, who aren't backing down, and free advice to the republican party. the republican party lost the hispanic vote huge time, and if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country, you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future. >> yeah, bill. let me just say, on bill's defense, he's actually pro immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago, and again for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this. let's talk about how this man, reported by the fbi in 2011, went to russia for six months, came back in the country with a russian or kyrgyz passport. let's have border security first. >> the bill is based on border

security. >> and would it help with this problem? >> we should ask these questions. we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> we agree on that. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. make sure to follow us on twitter @foxnewssunday. up next, our power player of the week.

he they will dedicate the george w. bush library on friday.

in attendance, president obama, the four living former presidents, and the man who followed bush 43 every step and every snap of the way. here's our power player of the week. >> i had an all-access pass. i could literally walk into the oval office without anyone blinking. >> eric draper was the chief white house photographer for the bush presidency. in a new book called "front row seat," he shows some of the almost 1 million pictures he took. >> we developed a really good rapport over the years to where he really didn't have to say anything to me. really it was seamless because i spent so much time with him. >> 9/11, draper was in the holding room in that florida school after the president learned of the attack and started drafting his statement to the nation. >> he picked up a notepad and started writing notes. he never looked up, and it wasn't until several minutes later and they're replaying the images of the video of flight 177 and hitting the south tower, and for the first time, the

president turns and sees that image that's burned into everyone's memory. >> later in his private cabin on air force one, the president talks with his chief of staff. >> the president really wanted to return to washington, and he was frustrated because basically andy card was saying that it couldn't happen, that it wasn't safe. >> mr. bush follows events from his office on the plane. >> the president is watching the live footage of the twin towers collapsing, and he was watching in silence for several minutes, and didn't say a word. it was like i wasn't there. i really felt truly invisible that day. >> but there are happier times. inauguration day, 2001. the president sits at his desk in the oval office for the first time with his dad looking on. >> it was a truly proud father-son moment. >> and was the father calling the son george or son, or was he calling him mr. president? >> mr. president, yeah, exactly. >> and there are the informal

moments. the president riding a bike through the west wing, getting a boxing row early one morning and looking for someone to show it to, a conga line of bushes on election night 2004. the president's favorite photo. >> why did the president like it so much? >> i think because of barney. he called barney the son he never had. >> but also the burden of the job, march 19, 2003, the day he orders the invasion of iraq. >> i saw the emotion in his eyes. i saw tears, and i followed him, walked up, walked through the oval office, and he walked the entire length of the south lawn around, and i waited for him at that moment, and capturing that expression on his face, the look following that major decision. >> draper remembers the day he started the job, flying from texas to washington with the president-elect. >> he turns to me, and he says, eric, welcome aboard. we will see the world together.

and i thought to myself, wow, this is going to be a wild ride. >> how was the ride? >> it was amazing. i had the ultimate photography job for eight years, and the president gave me the trust to just be there and to document everything. and to me, that was the ultimate experience. >> eric draper hasn't hung up his camera. he was mitt romney's photographer during last year's campaign, and he will be taking more pictures of the bushes at this week's library dedication. that's it for today as we end a tumultuous week of terror and ultimately of triumph. we'll see you next "fox news sunday."